Buddhism and Vedanta BUDDHA, A PRAGMATIST Both Buddhism and Vedanta stress the need to practise self­ restraint. Perhaps all religions feel self-restraint is the first step towards religious progress. It is the first step, but it is also a step from which there is no withdrawal. At no point of time can a truly religious man say that he needs no self-restraint unless he is a person to whom self-restraint is not a matter of effort but has become his second nature. Where this is the case, there is no mystery in religion which he cannot un­ ravel, Why did Buddha have so much aversion to metaphysical discussions? It was because he found people talked and talked, they seldom got down to solving the problem before them. the problem of how to end the suffering which was the common mis­ fortune of mankind as a whole. He wanted that people should concentrate on this rather than waste time discussing academic questions. Perhaps he had also found that those who asked him questions about God or soul did so out of idle curiosity, rather than with any serious intent to know the truth, to unravel the mystery of life. Sometimes he scolded the questioner saying that he had better turn his attention to more urgent matters in hand rather than trouble himself about matters not of immediate concern. In this connection, the story of Malukya's encounter with Buddha as narrated by Dr. Oldenberg may be of interest. "The venerable Malukya comes to the Master and expresses his astonishment that the Master's discourse leaves a series of the very most important and deepest questions unanswered. Is the world eternal or is it limited by bounds of time? Does the Perfect Buddha live on beyond death? Does the Perfect one not live on beyond death? It pleases me not, says the monk, that all this shall remain 15 unanswered and I do not think it right; therefore I am come to the Master to interrogate him about these doubts. May it please Buddha to answer them if he can. But when one does not understand a matter and does not know it, then a straightforward man says' I do not understand that. I do not know that. ('The Creed of Buddha' by Holmes. p. 143). Buddha was far from pleased with this question. Malukya seemed to suggest that Buddha was not being fair to his dis­ ciples. There were questions to . which Buddha perhaps' did not know the right answers. If he did not know. he should frankly admit it, but it was not right that he should refuse to answer the questions, for that only kept the people guessing. Buddha asked Malukya with a touch of irony if he had ever invited Malukya to be his disciple. Malukya replied he had not. Buddha then pointed out to him how irrelevant the questions he had raised were, The questions related to the nature of the soul and the world. Buddha said, "If a man were struck by a poisoned arrow, and his friends and relations called in a skilful physiCian, what if the man said: 'I shatl not allow my wound to be treated until I know who the man is by whom I have been wounded, whether he is a noble, a Brahman, .a Vaishya, a Sudra'-or if he said: 'I shall not allow my wound to be treated until I know what they call the man who has wounded me, and of what famliy he is, whether he is tall or small or of middle stature. and how his weapon was made with which he has struck me.' What would the end of the case be? The man would die of his wound," BUDDHA',3 IMPATIENCE WITH METAPHYSiCS But what did BUddha show this impatience? One reason may be that he knew it was not essential that man should know answers to these questions. It is also possible that he thought that if he said 'yes' or 'no' in reply to these questions, it would only increase the confusion that already prevailed. It would perhaps 16 raise more questions and however much he might try to explain and clear their doubts, people would get caught in the maze of metaphysical subtleties. The knowledge Malukya was seeking was not essential. Buddha had already said enough on the subject of whether the world was permanent or not and whether there was such a thing as a soul and if that soul survived after a man's death. This is why Buddha, with a degree of finality, said to Malukya, "Therefore, Malukyaputta, whatsoever has not been revealed by me, let that remain unrevealed, what has been revealed, let it be revealed.' (The Creed of Buddha, p. 144). It must be lJnderstood that there are certain truths which the human mind can never fully comprehend. Even if a man can comprehend them, he can­ not communicate his knowledge or understanding to others. The truths are so vast, so profound that when. asked about them one can do no better than remain silent. To drive this point home, nun Khema asked King Pasendai of Kosala, '0 great king. hast thou an accountant, or a mint-master, or a treasurer who could measure the water in the great ocean, who could say: there are therein so many measures of water or so many hundreds or thousands or hundreds of. thousands of measures of water ?' The king replied, 'no'. 'And why not 7 The great ocean is deep, immeasurable, unf~thomable. So also, 0 great king, if the existence of the Perfect one be measured by the predicates of corporeal from; these predicates of the corporeal form are abolished in the Perfect one, their root is severed, they are hewn away like a palm tree and laid aside, so that they cannot germinate again in the future.' There is no frame of reference, no Nama and Rupa (name and form), by which what happens when the Perfect one passes away can be described. It is like a river falling into the . ocean when it loses its separate identity. Yatha nadyah syanda­ manah samudre astam gachhanti name-rupe Vihaya. Munda 3.2.8. The phenomenon c!'ln be guessed, but certainly not descri­ beed. Buddha wanted that his disciples should first practise Asta­ marga and somehow or other overcome their attachment to sense enjoyment. If they did, they would then be able to enter the world of transcendental experience where Truth would automatically 17 reveal itself to them. It was this kind of direct experience that could dispel all doubts and not merely scholarship. Scholarship is also a kind of enjoyment which like Buddha Vedanta also dis­ courages. Vivekachudamani says that scholars debate endlessly and display great skill while they argue, but all this may be good grist to the mill of those who are seeking enjoyment but, if they are seeking liberation it can never take them nearer to their goal. Scholarship is no knowledge, no way of removing avidya {ignorance}. Only direct and personal experience can remove ignorance. This is why 'seeing is believing'. So long as there is ignorance, trouble will continue. Practice of Asta-marga (self-restraint) induces the state of mind in which the transcendental experience becomes possible. Both Vedanta and Buddhism hold that there is no escape from suffering so long as ignorance lasts, So all efforts must be directed towards removal of ignorance. To underscore this, Buddha once said that if you wanted to build a Kutagars (peaked house), all rafters should then point upwards and meet at a common point. He said all troubles originate from ignorance Dvijjamu/aka. Because of this ignorance, man is deluded into thinking what is unreal as real. Thinking the unreal as real he feels drawn towards it and soon gets attached to it. The state of bondage to which both Buddhism and Vedanta again and again refer and from which man is urged to extricate himself is this state of attach­ ment to sense-pleasure which is perishable and therefore unreal. BUDDHA MISUNDERSTOOD But Buddha's silence on questions of God, soul, etc. has been misunderstood, misinterpreted. Perhaps even when he was alive people had never completely stopped debating about them. However. much he might have wished to avoid philosophical wranglings, these always continued and perhaps intensified when he passed away. As doubts persisted about the real import of what Buddha had taught, elders of the Buddhist Order called a council at Rajagriha in 483 B. C. immediately after Buddha's passing away. 500 monks attended it. Mahakasyapa presided and 18 Ananda recited the Dhamma. There must have been much acri­ monious debate at this council but one has no record of it. Whatever might have hap;:>ened, the doubts were never completely set at rest. That people should misunderstand and have dJubts about what e.<actlv Buddha t3ught i3 natural. seeing that no written records were available. As more and more doubts arose, a second Buddhist council was held at Vesali in 383 B. C. i. e., one hundred years after the ir ,to 700 m:>nks attandeJ the council. The council lasted for eighteen months which must be an indication that the debates were hot and exciting. It is said that a section of monks called Mahasanghikas were condemned as corrupt. On the other hand, Mahasanghikas \/I. ho numbered 10,000 held a parallel council and con:iemned the orthodoc Theravadis. They claimed that they represented the true Buddha spirit. A split among the followers of Buddha seemed inevitable and it took place.